Possible or not?

Bacchus Rex

For the last two days, I've reading in the news about how the prices of fruit and cereals are about to go up dramatically worldwide. Apparently the culprits, are ever higher oil prices and failing crops due to global climate change.

Since Ireland seems to have been blessed with With, rain and grass, I can't help but wonder:

-1> Would it be possible to promote the use of electric cars or even horse and cart as main forms of private transport? Naturally, at this stage we couldn't do away with the entire oil-based motor industry, but from improved bicycle tracks nationwide to cheaper public transport, the options are not just a few.
Should houses be built with a garage and/or a stable? Is it really that crazy? Petrol, electricity and/or hay? Parking buildings and /or livery yards in city centers? Can Ireland dramatically lessen its dependence on foreign oil by having a nationwide transport system that doesn't make a cent for the oil corporations?

-2> Would it be possible to roll the model out to a global audience and have the first oil-free continental shipping based right here in Ireland. I guess the image of an old India-man sailing the big blue, basked in the Westerlies with its cargo is a rather romantic one. But with today's advances an electric/ sailing fleet isn't that far-fetched. And, could the West of Ireland (being one of the shortest routes to link Europe and America) provide the necessary port facilities and transport infrastructure to such a venture?

Mumble Jumble or much needed Irish inspiration?
Enjoy, have a laugh and you decide.

Thank you.

BR
argumentum ab inconvenienti

Markcheese

I suppose your groom could take care of the horse, but where would you park it when yr at work...what sort of kph would you get out of a horse....
Electric cars, now there's an idea, my god why has no one thought of it before...if only someone could research this...
Some crowd are using/ about to use battery operated ferries between Scottish islands... You can bet that if electric ships become viable they'll be used/ trialed... Fuels too dear for shipping companies to ignore...

Judgement Day

Is this a school homework project?

Bacchus Rex

I'm doing a bit of research, in particular to do with low-carbon maritime shipping. Is a personal project, not for school. So any opinion, as long as it is constructive, is valid. Thanks.

Bacchus Rex

Markcheese wrote: »

I suppose your groom could take care of the horse, but where would you park it when yr at work...what sort of kph would you get out of a horse....
Electric cars, now there's an idea, my god why has no one thought of it before...if only someone could research this...
Some crowd are using/ about to use battery operated ferries between Scottish islands... You can bet that if electric ships become viable they'll be used/ trialed... Fuels too dear for shipping companies to ignore...

Sure horses wouldn't be the solution for long distance travel or heavily built areas, but in rural areas where feed and room to have the horses is available, there could certainly be a possibility. In terms of speed, well it all depends how fast you want to get there, a horse can be pretty fast, but it is all relative to the distance you are trying to cover. The electric and hybrid cars are getting ever more advanced, what I think is a shame is that the government isn't trying to promote the use of these on a big scale. See, petrol gives a lot of revenue on taxes, that's why.
Is good that you mentioned the ferries, only yesterday I was looking at an article about what may be the future of maritime shipping http://www.treehugger.com/cars/carbo...s-in-2012.html. You know the fuel used by the tankers and cargo ships is up to 50% more dirty that that used by cars and even planes. Is by far one of the biggest polluters of the environment. But again, is not that easy to break the love affair with the oil cartels. some companies are actually offering solutions for existing cargo ships to reduce their carbon footprint and make savings on fuel. Options already exist and more are being explored, kites for cargo ships, solar sails, etc...

I would be more inclined to think of why do people have to go from A to B in the first place and as to why A and B have to be so far apart!

Solve that one and you'll reduce most of the personal energy consumption in the country in one go.

Lantus

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

-1> Would it be possible to promote the use of electric cars or even horse and cart as main forms of private transport? Naturally, at this stage we couldn't do away with the entire oil-based motor industry, but from improved bicycle tracks nationwide to cheaper public transport, the options are not just a few.

Should houses be built with a garage and/or a stable? Is it really that crazy? Petrol, electricity and/or hay? Parking buildings and /or livery yards in city centers? Can Ireland dramatically lessen its dependence on foreign oil by having a nationwide transport system that doesn't make a cent for the oil corporations?

Electricity is NOT an energy source. It is produced generally by burning something like gas or oil or coal. You get electricity delivered to your house at about 50% eff. (The other half is lost as waste heat when you burn the fuel.)

The amount of wind and solar needed to meet the countries needs would require several counties to be 'caked' in turbines in terms of required area and many more for solar. It's possible but there are immense challenges.

Cars are made using vast amounts of oil, all plastics are oil, car tyres contain several gallons of oil each. Simply switiching to electric doesn't mitigate the problem.

Our cities and living spaces are remnants from hundreds of years ago in terms of their layout and design, no longer fit for purpose we could design out the need for cars alltogether if we designed and built purpose built cities from the ground up with our current and future needs in mind.

Bacchus Rex

Lantus wrote: »

Electricity is NOT an energy source. It is produced generally by burning something like gas or oil or coal. You get electricity delivered to your house at about 50% eff. (The other half is lost as waste heat when you burn the fuel.)

The amount of wind and solar needed to meet the countries needs would require several counties to be 'caked' in turbines in terms of required area and many more for solar. It's possible but there are immense challenges.

Cars are made using vast amounts of oil, all plastics are oil, car tyres contain several gallons of oil each. Simply switiching to electric doesn't mitigate the problem.

Our cities and living spaces are remnants from hundreds of years ago in terms of their layout and design, no longer fit for purpose we could design out the need for cars alltogether if we designed and built purpose built cities from the ground up with our current and future needs in mind.

It is surprising to me that you say electricity isn't an energy source; please correct me if I am wrong, but the fact that I am aware of, is that electricity is absolutely everywhere. It is the power source of organic life including our body and vast if not gargantuan amounts of it are all around us in the atmosphere we live in.
Have you ever heard of the late scientist, Nikola Tesla? the surname might ring a bell or two. The fact is that Mr. Tesla (as in Tesla coil), not only found the way to harness the environmental electricity, but actually developed an entire project on how to bring the power to the entire world (that's correct, the entire planet) absolutely free of charge. Of course, these where the days of the atom bomb and there was something beyond fear towards the idea that a world with a power source that was, not only clean and safe, but most terrifying of all: totally free of charge, was doomed to collapse into total anarchy and the most obdurate communism. Hence our forefathers, specifically those of the Americans, decided in all their wisdom to not only discredit Mr. Tesla as an eccentric in an effort (successful) to alienate him from the scientific community, but upon his death (in rather mysterious circumstances and timing) the US government expropriated all his patents, including that of an already developed plan to wirelessly transfer of vast amounts of electricity (that's correct, wirelessly) to any number of points within the planet Earth.

Sounds, like science fiction I know, and it wold be nothing more than that if it wasn't because there are people at this very instant using such technology in their homes. A quick browse in youtube will allow you to see some home-made Tesla coils in action. Nothing as sophisticated and effective as it would have been with proper government backing. In fact, there is proof that this was used in the ex-Soviet Union to power entire towns (before electricity bills arrived over there). I recommend to watch a documentary on Tesla for more information.

Finally,(and here is just my opinion) it comes as no surprise that the burning of any type of fossil fuel, for the purpose of obtaining electricity, is not only wasteful and harmful to the environment... it is ultimately rather inefficient when the output is considered. It clearly suits our economic and political establishments to have a monopoly on a power source by quantifying it and charging for its use. If electricity was free (and it is as free as the air we breathe), our society as we know it would certainly undergo some major socio-economic changes. Now the boys in power, do not like changes; specially those that make them loose money... hence the non-support policy and the hypocrisy of all governments, to face people and tell them they are doing all they can to promote clean energy while they keep a foot on everyone's throat by increasing oil prices twice a week.

djpbarry

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the late scientist, Nikola Tesla? the surname might ring a bell or two. The fact is that Mr. Tesla (as in Tesla coil), not only found the way to harness the environmental electricity, but actually developed an entire project on how to bring the power to the entire world (that's correct, the entire planet) absolutely free of charge. Of course, these where the days of the atom bomb and there was something beyond fear towards the idea that a world with a power source that was, not only clean and safe, but most terrifying of all: totally free of charge, was doomed to collapse into total anarchy and the most obdurate communism. Hence our forefathers, specifically those of the Americans, decided in all their wisdom to not only discredit Mr. Tesla as an eccentric in an effort (successful) to alienate him from the scientific community, but upon his death (in rather mysterious circumstances and timing) the US government expropriated all his patents, including that of an already developed plan to wirelessly transfer of vast amounts of electricity (that's correct, wirelessly) to any number of points within the planet Earth.

[MOD]Save it for the Conspiracy Theories forum[/MOD]

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

A quick browse in youtube will allow you to see some home-made Tesla coils in action. Nothing as sophisticated and effective as it would have been with proper government backing. In fact, there is proof that this was used in the ex-Soviet Union to power entire towns...

A Tesla coil is essentially a high-voltage transformer – how could it be used to “power” a town?

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

If electricity was free (and it is as free as the air we breathe)...

Well, no, it isn’t, because something has to generate it and that requires work (and the expense of energy).

Bacchus Rex

djpbarry wrote: »

[MOD]Save it for the Conspiracy Theories forum[/MOD]
A Tesla coil is essentially a high-voltage transformer – how could it be used to “power” a town?
Well, no, it isn’t, because something has to generate it and that requires work (and the expense of energy).

1). Conspiracy theory? where is the theory? Tesla did die in mysterious circumstances and the US government did expropriate his patents...

2). Tesla invented the resonant transformer known as the Tesla coil to power a new technology of high-frequency illumination.
Tesla's wireless power sends electric power through the ground with a giant Tesla coil, the magnifying transmitter. Consumers pick up home power free, like a radio signal. Power is sufficient even for industrial uses. The 60-cycle AC power system invented by Tesla made possible electric-power transmission over long distances. This enabled the development of an interdependent power grid. Tesla's own 60-cycle alternating-current system (his dynamos, transformers, motors, transmission lines) had already become so institutionalized that his new alternative had to be crushed.

Circa 1900 Tesla constructed prototypes at Colorado Springs and at Shoreham, Long Island. In the 1930's, in rural Quebec, Tesla installed a magnifying-transmitter utility that sent power between towns 70 miles apart (from Chambord to La Tuque).

In 1901 Tesla patented a space-energy receiver (US Patent No. 685,957). The same idea was later developed successfully by a flock of free-energy inventors (Moray, Coler, Hendershot, etc.). Such a device could put a compact, quiet, pollution-free power plant right in your basement.
Tesla patented his high-frequency lighting idea, but industry would not allow it. Thus the Tesla coil became taboo.

3). The principle on which Tesla founded his entire work, was in the fact that the Earth has a natural electromagnetic field. This is the source of the electricity. The Tesla coil is just a transformer, as you pointed out. In as much as the Sun is a power source, the natural electromagnetic field of the Earth IS indeed a natural power source.

djpbarry

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

1). Conspiracy theory? where is the theory?

Right here:

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

Tesla's own 60-cycle alternating-current system ... had already become so institutionalized that his new alternative had to be crushed.

Knock it off. The idea that Tesla's work has somehow been suppressed is ludicrous - the unit of magnetic flux density is named in his honour! Almost 300 of his patents are accounted for. You know about his work. I know about his work. If there has been some sort of effort to erase his work from history, it has been an absolutely epic failure.

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

In as much as the Sun is a power source, the natural electromagnetic field of the Earth IS indeed a natural power source.

Yes it is, but an incredibly weak one: about 50 microTesla at the Earth's surface. By contrast, the field intensity at the surface of a neodymium magnet (often used in motors and loudspeakers) is about 1,000 times greater. If the Earth's magnetic field was strong enough to generate electricity, the skies above our heads would be full of metallic objects being tossed about. You could generate an appreciable current by simply waving a piece of metal in the air. Faraday would have found it virtually impossible to conduct his experiments on electromagnetism in the presence of such a strong background field!

Tesla had some interesting ideas, but he also had some downright loopy ones. He certainly wasn't the first scientist who could be described as being a touch eccentric and he certainly won't be the last.

Bacchus Rex

djpbarry wrote: »

Right here:
Knock it off. The idea that Tesla's work has somehow been suppressed is ludicrous - the unit of magnetic flux density is named in his honour! Almost 300 of his patents are accounted for. You know about his work. I know about his work. If there has been some sort of effort to erase his work from history, it has been an absolutely epic failure.
Yes it is, but an incredibly weak one: about 50 microTesla at the Earth's surface. By contrast, the field intensity at the surface of a neodymium magnet (often used in motors and loudspeakers) is about 1,000 times greater. If the Earth's magnetic field was strong enough to generate electricity, the skies above our heads would be full of metallic objects being tossed about. You could generate an appreciable current by simply waving a piece of metal in the air. Faraday would have found it virtually impossible to conduct his experiments on electromagnetism in the presence of such a strong background field!

Tesla had some interesting ideas, but he also had some downright loopy ones. He certainly wasn't the first scientist who could be described as being a touch eccentric and he certainly won't be the last.

2). Not as much a conspiracy about erasing his name from history as a biased business decision with huge implications. There was a time, believe it or not, when there was a choice between free electricity on a global scale and the system that exists now, one which involves industry and is at the core a fossil fuel-based movement.
Just because it is obvious which way the rulers of the time went and we have grown accustomed to paying for what is free, please don't make the whole thing appear like a conspiracy. It is not a conspiracy, it is an outrage if you ask me. With little investment, every household could have its independent power plant clean, safe and free of charge. Now that is a fact sir/madam. Electrical items would need to be adapted to this technology but that is all.

Now, I feel we are deviating from the point with all this talk on Tesla and the more we do the more it seems the Conspiracy theory forum. As you said, you know Tesla, I know Tesla and in the end, everyone is entitled to believe what they like. I thank you for your insight.

I would like to refocus the argument on whether is there a solution for Ireland's energy market that would bring an ease on the economy.

djpbarry

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

With little investment, every household could have its independent power plant clean, safe and free of charge. Now that is a fact sir/madam.

No, it's pure fantasy - I've already pointed out that the Earth's magnetic field is far, far too weak to generate “free” electricity for all, but you’ve just skipped right over that rather important fact.

Bacchus Rex

djpbarry wrote: »

No, it's pure fantasy - I've already pointed out that the Earth's magnetic field is far, far too weak to generate “free” electricity for all, but you’ve just skipped right over that rather important fact.

OK. If you do not understand what electromagnetism, I think you should refrain from calling certain things a fantasy.
Not only is the Earths magnetic field weak to produce electricity on its own... as a matter of fact it produces NO electricity on its own!
1). The vast amounts of energy that are present in the atmosphere, are produced by the highly charged particles coming from the Sun. The magnetic field of the Earth simply gets "damp" with this energy as well as filtering the rays of particles (that is why we do not get fried by the Sun). Kids in school know this much.

2). The electricity present in the atmosphere is visible to the naked eye in the poles of the Earth (aurora Borealis). From time to time it discharges in the form of electrical storms. Tesla's coil, is nothing more than a condensator. And what a condensate does, is accumulate energy. In this case, the energy present in the atmosphere, which is all around us.

Fantasies have no base in reality. The atmospheric electricity is a fact as much as Sun light is a fact. Just because it is not being used ( I will refrain from conspiracy) it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just before you make the next blunt assumption, let me remind you of a basic scientific principle: Energy, at least in the known universe, doesn't dissipate, it merely becomes something else (it mutates or changes estate) and has the ability to return to its original form. Particles of energy acquire or lose charge, but they do not disappear. Where do you suppose the barrage of energy our atmosphere takes goes to? It is there, always inextinguishable as a permanent source of energy.

djpbarry

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

The vast amounts of energy that are present in the atmosphere, are produced by the highly charged particles coming from the Sun.

You’re referring to electrical storms here? They result from convection in the atmosphere, not charged particles from the sun.

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

The electricity present in the atmosphere is visible to the naked eye in the poles of the Earth (aurora Borealis). From time to time it discharges in the form of electrical storms.

No – you’re confusing two completely different phenomena here. As said above, electrical storms result from convection in the atmosphere. The aurora borealis is caused by the collision of charged particles originating in the solar wind with atoms in the upper atmosphere – the energy is dissipated in the form of light, hence the light show.

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

Particles of energy acquire or lose charge, but they do not disappear.

I’m sorry – a “particle of energy”? What might that be?

Bacchus Rex

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re referring to electrical storms here? They result from convection in the atmosphere, not charged particles from the sun.
No – you’re confusing two completely different phenomena here. As said above, electrical storms result from convection in the atmosphere. The aurora borealis is caused by the collision of charged particles originating in the solar wind with atoms in the upper atmosphere – the energy is dissipated in the form of light, hence the light show.
I’m sorry – a “particle of energy”? What might that be?

So according to your estatement, there is no electricity in the natural environment and it can not be harnessed? Because if that is your point, no amount of phenomena explanation is going to prove your point.

Bacchus Rex

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

So according to your estatement, there is no electricity in the natural environment and it can not be harnessed? Because if that is your point, no amount of phenomena explanation is going to prove your point.

Any charged particle can be described as energy, even thou the term mat remain elusive to some minds. Even the atoms that form our bodies are particles of energy. What part of the words energy and particle is it that you dislike?

djpbarry

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

So according to your estatement, there is no electricity in the natural environment and it can not be harnessed?

Not in a practical manner, no.

Are you suggesting that there is sufficient energy in the aurora borealis/australis to power the planet?

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

Any charged particle can be described as energy...

No, a charged particle can be described as having energy. For example, during an aurora, Oxygen and Nitrogen atoms are excited (energised) by the solar wind, but they emit light and return to their ground state (de-energised).

Capt'n Midnight

Horses are a non starter.

For private transport they were replaced by the bicycle.
A fit human on a bike can out distance a horse. A bike doesn't need to be fed whether you use it or not. A bike doesn't produce 10Kg of manure a day. Manure that was worth less that it cost to transport it because nitrate deposits were richer fertiliser. And when your horse bolts it's not good. When it keels over and dies in the middle of the street you have to sort it out before it becomes a major public health hazard.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/when-horses-posed-a-public-health-hazard/



Problem with sailing and solar transport is that customers want shippers to stick to schedules. So you are relegated to stuff that has a low time value or low value. Stuff that is carried in bulk, where the surface to volume ratio is not conducive to harvesting natural energy.



The problem is not harvesting renewable energy, it's storing it so you can use it when it's not available.

I would expect to see a large increase in the use of electrically assisted bicycles, not everyone is fit enough to ride any significant distance, say 15km each way commute.

Relatively cheap electric bikes are available today, the batteries could be charged from renewable energy sources, it's simply a case of having more than one set.

Far greater savings would be made by localization of employment, in other words live close to work or on a bus/tram or rail corridor. Private car use is already in decline, just look at the number of teenagers driving today compared with 2005.

Bacchus Rex

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Horses are a non starter.

For private transport they were replaced by the bicycle.
A fit human on a bike can out distance a horse. A bike doesn't need to be fed whether you use it or not. A bike doesn't produce 10Kg of manure a day. Manure that was worth less that it cost to transport it because nitrate deposits were richer fertiliser. And when your horse bolts it's not good. When it keels over and dies in the middle of the street you have to sort it out before it becomes a major public health hazard.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/when-horses-posed-a-public-health-hazard/



Problem with sailing and solar transport is that customers want shippers to stick to schedules. So you are relegated to stuff that has a low time value or low value. Stuff that is carried in bulk, where the surface to volume ratio is not conducive to harvesting natural energy.



The problem is not harvesting renewable energy, it's storing it so you can use it when it's not available.

Yes, I think you've made a valuable point regarding the use of bikes against the use of animals. And storing energy still is somewhat of an issue; not that the technology for efficient storage doesn't exist already, but it isn't as of yet, cost efficient for the general public. Just look at the cost of a Li-ion battery for a laptop!

In regards to sail or sail assisted shipping, this is being used right now. And it does translate into savings for shipping companies in terms of fuel consumption. Now, to move towards an entirely sail shipping industry, certainly poses some challenges and it presents itself as somewhat impossible given the world's population. But I think the challenges are mostly in the consumer side. Obviously, to ship goods from Taiwan to Europe using sail ships, is just not practical... but I still believe it could be a great step forward if governments took more interest to support the initiative on domestic markets. Take the EU; Europe is surrounded by sea, yet road and unclean rail systems of transport remain the principal methods of shipping. Ultimately, it is down to schedules and timing. Not that I'm suggesting that road transport could nor should be diminished, but there are some cleaner options on that field too that are not being considered... or at least not seriously.

Bacchus Rex

Deleted User wrote: »

I would expect to see a large increase in the use of electrically assisted bicycles, not everyone is fit enough to ride any significant distance, say 15km each way commute.

Relatively cheap electric bikes are available today, the batteries could be charged from renewable energy sources, it's simply a case of having more than one set.

Far greater savings would be made by localization of employment, in other words live close to work or on a bus/tram or rail corridor. Private car use is already in decline, just look at the number of teenagers driving today compared with 2005.

Well it is rapidly becoming a reality that the teenagers of today, will not be able to drive a petrol/diesel fueled car by the time they get past their 50's. Either there will be cleaner fuels available, or the entire concept of transport will have changed... Who dares to imagine what the price of a barrel of oil will be by 2072?
It is a dying industry and regardless of what the optimists say, my opinion is that it is holding the entire civilized world in the past, not letting us advance towards more effective and clean options.

I would like to talk at this point, since no one has done it yet, of the social influence of legacy transport (oil based).
What I mean is, even if electric cars (for example) or similar forms of transportation became readily available, would they (to put it bluntly) be as appealing or "sexy" to the general public as the "time honored" petrol car? After all, the car industry, gigantic as it is, has been bombarding our brains for over 100 years now and have made the car the single most successful non-essential market item in history.

Gurgle

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

What I mean is, even if electric cars (for example) or similar forms of transportation became readily available, would they (to put it bluntly) be as appealing or "sexy" to the general public as the "time honored" petrol car?

Where are you? (or When are you?)

Look out a window, electric cars are readily available. Give it another decade and they'll be matching the torque, speed and range of any ICE.

the teenagers of today, will not be able to drive a petrol/diesel fueled car by the time they get past their 50's

In much the same way that we can't commute on a steam train or take an airship to Paris.
The technology will be (is being) superseded by better, cleaner, cheaper alternatives.

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote: »

Where are you? (or When are you?)

Look out a window, electric cars are readily available. Give it another decade and they'll be matching the torque, speed and range of any ICE.

Today, it's possible to get one at the expence of the others, it'll need some major advances in battery technology to match all three.

A very tall order.

In much the same way that we can't commute on a steam train or take an airship to Paris.
The technology will be (is being) superseded by better, cleaner, cheaper alternatives.

The real cost of energy is increasing relative to incomes (and will continue to increase into the future), so this is very unlikely to happen.

The only reason we are not experienciong real shortages in fuel supplies (long queues at filling stations etc) is simply down to demand destruction resulting from high fuel prices and the current recession.

High fuel prices being one of the primary causes of the recession, if oil was plentiful, it would now be cheap!

Capt'n Midnight

Gurgle wrote: »

Where are you? (or When are you?)

Look out a window, electric cars are readily available. Give it another decade and they'll be matching the torque, speed and range of any ICE.

torque and speed have been surpassed since the 19th century.
the only advantage ICE has over electric is range and time to top up both of which are totally dependent on battery technology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Jamais_Contente

If you pimp out a TGV with bigger wheels you can get up to 574.8 km/h
change the wheels back and it's a normal train carrying passengers.

Top speed of a Hawker Hurricane is 547Km/hr

Bacchus Rex

Gurgle wrote: »

Where are you? (or When are you?)

Look out a window, electric cars are readily available. Give it another decade and they'll be matching the torque, speed and range of any ICE.


In much the same way that we can't commute on a steam train or take an airship to Paris.
The technology will be (is being) superseded by better, cleaner, cheaper alternatives.

Where: Ireland
When: 2012.
And no... I have several windows in my house; a number of them looking onto a busy road and I do not see any electrical cars driving on it with the frequency that you so... despotically suggest. Alas, perhaps you live in the year 2100 already since you seem to believe time travel is possible...?

Gurgle

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

even if electric cars (for example) or similar forms of transportation became readily available

Bacchus Rex wrote: »

I do not see any electrical cars driving on it with the frequency that you so... despotically suggest.

I don't think I'm up for an argument on the definition of 'readily available' today. Bye.